We have had years of playing with scenarios, talking about the prospects for various schools, and each pushing our fantasy selections, or our favorite schools. But in reality things were quite different in 1991-2.

The SEC had interest in 6 schools back then, and discussed others. There were several schools that were interested in the SEC and some interested in staying with schools that showed an interest. Suffice it to say that it came down supposedly to the following 6: Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson. Virginia Tech was considered too be to far away. West Virginia was still growing its reputation. And others just weren't what the SEC was looking for. Texas and A&M were reportedly curious about what we could offer since the SWC was shaky, OU was quietly interested if UT was, Florida State had been interested, Arkansas seemed to be ready, and Clemson was investigating the situation.

The stated goal was 2 schools to get to 12 and split the divisions in order to have a conference championship game. Obviously the two Texas schools could add huge value, and if another brand and friend of theirs would consider coming along then great. Florida State would have given us more than an even hold over a growing state, and Clemson was at the time worried about the lack of football emphasis in the ACC. If the Tigers came along with the Noles we would pick up a good state and a stepping stone to North Carolina in the future. So, before other interested parties got started we made a long shot play to jump right to 16 and to claim all of our objectives at that time.

Arkansas was seen as a solid brand, a lone state university that delivered the whole state, and was a great bridge to Texas.

But you know all of that. So I ask you now just to consider the map, and the brands. It is after all the best way for you to get a feel for where the SEC might head next. Those 6 schools represented were not the ultimate goal but a way of getting into the areas we considered most valuable to us and that was the ultimate goal.

Clemson backed out when F.S.U. headed to the ACC. South Carolina applied and gave us what we needed in the Palmetto State. Bridge to North Carolina accomplished.

Arkansas was decisive and gave us the bridge we wanted to Texas.

Texas wanted to explore other options and later both UT and A&M would run into political issues within their state.

Florida State chose the ACC for Bowden's stated purposes and even more reasons behind the scenes. The SEC desire to acquire more of the Sunshine State was therefore thwarted. Miami was a strategically intelligent acquisition for the ACC. That situation was a tactical error for us.

South Carolina was a nice addition but heretofore has not become the bridge we thought they might be into North Carolina. That addition while solid hasn't failed in its strategic purpose, but neither has it accomplished it. Appraisal of choice: Good.

Arkansas has now paid off with the addition of Texas A&M. Appraisal of choice: Excellent.

With the addition of A&M 3 of our first 6 goals have been accomplished.

Missouri would not have been possible without Arkansas either. Did we seek Missouri? No. But the addition of Missouri with new markets helped to cover part of what we had hoped to accomplish with another Florida brand, a greater share of markets. Appraisal of choice: Good to Very Good

With Missouri taking the place of the original hope of a second Florida school we now have 4 of our original slots filled.

Texas and Oklahoma remain outstanding. Either one would give us all we really need. Both would lock us into an unquestioned hold over top product and would no doubt NET everyone involved a much tidier sum.

So where do we stand today after acquiring the first two, the CCG, and now two more?:
A North Carolina School: Not Happening
A Virginia School: Nice Market, Not Happening, Was Too Far in '91 and Is Still Too Far
A South Carolina School: Check
A Second Florida School: Not Happening Any Time Soon
A Texas School or the Top Pair of Texas Schools: Check on the First Part
An Oklahoma School: Was a Bonus in '91. Now a Must if Texas Doesn't Join As They Give Us Essential Dominance In DFW: Still Needs to be Accomplished

Florida Make UP: Missouri - Check

As for now: If OU & UT join it's a grand slam. If just Texas joins we might look to Kansas as a second. If just Oklahoma joins we might have to take OSU to get them. Why? The Big 10 and PAC will be shopping for them too.

So I would feel comfortable saying that the SEC will be in the market for OU. The SEC would take Texas if the wanted in. We need a second Texas school for the same reason we would have been fortunate to have landed F.S.U. It's a big state and one of the top 2 schools plus a lesser brand cuts into our share too much. Holding both top brands locks down the state.

Another Texas school with just Texas? Probably not a requirement.
Another Oklahoma school with OU? Might well be a requirement.
Kansas? Great basketball addition but not a great fit.
West Virginia? Better suited to the ACC geographically.

It's probably what you already knew to be the options, but clearly there are only 2 schools we likely would take immediately. And the variable are few thereafter.

So speculation about moving to 20 or more simply isn't sustainable unless those schools were one of the North Carolina State schools, Florida State, or perhaps a strong and growing brand in Clemson, or that bridge too far in Virginia. In any event none of those are likely at all right now, if ever.

In fact, they may never have a reason to join us unless we added the options to the West that would make our financial reasons compelling.

But I assure you the Big 10 will have similar plans and essentially the same strategy. Whether in a year, or in six, the battle for Texas and Oklahoma is coming. That's where your eyes and thoughts need to be focused.

(02-12-2017 12:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We have had years of playing with scenarios, talking about the prospects for various schools, and each pushing our fantasy selections, or our favorite schools. But in reality things were quite different in 1991-2.

The SEC had interest in 6 schools back then, and discussed others. There were several schools that were interested in the SEC and some interested in staying with schools that showed an interest. Suffice it to say that it came down supposedly to the following 6: Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson. Virginia Tech was considered too be to far away. West Virginia was still growing its reputation. And others just weren't what the SEC was looking for. Texas and A&M were reportedly curious about what we could offer since the SWC was shaky, OU was quietly interested if UT was, Florida State had been interested, Arkansas seemed to be ready, and Clemson was investigating the situation.

The stated goal was 2 schools to get to 12 and split the divisions in order to have a conference championship game. Obviously the two Texas schools could add huge value, and if another brand and friend of theirs would consider coming along then great. Florida State would have given us more than an even hold over a growing state, and Clemson was at the time worried about the lack of football emphasis in the ACC. If the Tigers came along with the Noles we would pick up a good state and a stepping stone to North Carolina in the future. So, before other interested parties got started we made a long shot play to jump right to 16 and to claim all of our objectives at that time.

Arkansas was seen as a solid brand, a lone state university that delivered the whole state, and was a great bridge to Texas.

But you know all of that. So I ask you now just to consider the map, and the brands. It is after all the best way for you to get a feel for where the SEC might head next. Those 6 schools represented were not the ultimate goal but a way of getting into the areas we considered most valuable to us and that was the ultimate goal.

Clemson backed out when F.S.U. headed to the ACC. South Carolina applied and gave us what we needed in the Palmetto State. Bridge to North Carolina accomplished.

Arkansas was decisive and gave us the bridge we wanted to Texas.

Texas wanted to explore other options and later both UT and A&M would run into political issues within their state.

Florida State chose the ACC for Bowden's stated purposes and even more reasons behind the scenes. The SEC desire to acquire more of the Sunshine State was therefore thwarted. Miami was a strategically intelligent acquisition for the ACC. That situation was a tactical error for us.

South Carolina was a nice addition but heretofore has not become the bridge we thought they might be into North Carolina. That addition while solid hasn't failed in its strategic purpose, but neither has it accomplished it. Appraisal of choice: Good.

Arkansas has now paid off with the addition of Texas A&M. Appraisal of choice: Excellent.

With the addition of A&M 3 of our first 6 goals have been accomplished.

Missouri would not have been possible without Arkansas either. Did we seek Missouri? No. But the addition of Missouri with new markets helped to cover part of what we had hoped to accomplish with another Florida brand, a greater share of markets. Appraisal of choice: Good to Very Good

With Missouri taking the place of the original hope of a second Florida school we now have 4 of our original slots filled.

Texas and Oklahoma remain outstanding. Either one would give us all we really need. Both would lock us into an unquestioned hold over top product and would no doubt NET everyone involved a much tidier sum.

So where do we stand today after acquiring the first two, the CCG, and now two more?:
A North Carolina School: Not Happening
A Virginia School: Nice Market, Not Happening, Was Too Far in '91 and Is Still Too Far
A South Carolina School: Check
A Second Florida School: Not Happening Any Time Soon
A Texas School or the Top Pair of Texas Schools: Check on the First Part
An Oklahoma School: Was a Bonus in '91. Now a Must if Texas Doesn't Join As They Give Us Essential Dominance In DFW: Still Needs to be Accomplished

Florida Make UP: Missouri - Check

As for now: If OU & UT join it's a grand slam. If just Texas joins we might look to Kansas as a second. If just Oklahoma joins we might have to take OSU to get them. Why? The Big 10 and PAC will be shopping for them too.

So I would feel comfortable saying that the SEC will be in the market for OU. The SEC would take Texas if the wanted in. We need a second Texas school for the same reason we would have been fortunate to have landed F.S.U. It's a big state and one of the top 2 schools plus a lesser brand cuts into our share too much. Holding both top brands locks down the state.

Another Texas school with just Texas? Probably not a requirement.
Another Oklahoma school with OU? Might well be a requirement.
Kansas? Great basketball addition but not a great fit.
West Virginia? Better suited to the ACC geographically.

It's probably what you already knew to be the options, but clearly there are only 2 schools we likely would take immediately. And the variable are few thereafter.

So speculation about moving to 20 or more simply isn't sustainable unless those schools were one of the North Carolina State schools, Florida State, or perhaps a strong and growing brand in Clemson, or that bridge too far in Virginia. In any event none of those are likely at all right now, if ever.

In fact, they may never have a reason to join us unless we added the options to the West that would make our financial reasons compelling.

But I assure you the Big 10 will have similar plans and essentially the same strategy. Whether in a year, or in six, the battle for Texas and Oklahoma is coming. That's where your eyes and thoughts need to be focused.

Jr, why would Virginia be considered too far away, while looking at Austin? Just curious.

VT is 3.5-4 hr drive to Knoxville TN and 6.5 hours to Atlanta. VT gets you into the Washington DC market as a huge chunk of their alumni live and reside there

Now, West Virginia would be a major geographical outlier. They would only get you into the Pittsburgh market.

Regardless, if we add OU and OSU, the B12 is stuck at a point of how to organize itself to remain competitive with other P5 conferences or break up.

The B1G might be best plucking AAU's from the PAC, but tbh the PAC would probably sell their interest in their network just to get I picked up nation wide

(02-12-2017 02:45 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 12:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We have had years of playing with scenarios, talking about the prospects for various schools, and each pushing our fantasy selections, or our favorite schools. But in reality things were quite different in 1991-2.

The SEC had interest in 6 schools back then, and discussed others. There were several schools that were interested in the SEC and some interested in staying with schools that showed an interest. Suffice it to say that it came down supposedly to the following 6: Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson. Virginia Tech was considered too be to far away. West Virginia was still growing its reputation. And others just weren't what the SEC was looking for. Texas and A&M were reportedly curious about what we could offer since the SWC was shaky, OU was quietly interested if UT was, Florida State had been interested, Arkansas seemed to be ready, and Clemson was investigating the situation.

The stated goal was 2 schools to get to 12 and split the divisions in order to have a conference championship game. Obviously the two Texas schools could add huge value, and if another brand and friend of theirs would consider coming along then great. Florida State would have given us more than an even hold over a growing state, and Clemson was at the time worried about the lack of football emphasis in the ACC. If the Tigers came along with the Noles we would pick up a good state and a stepping stone to North Carolina in the future. So, before other interested parties got started we made a long shot play to jump right to 16 and to claim all of our objectives at that time.

Arkansas was seen as a solid brand, a lone state university that delivered the whole state, and was a great bridge to Texas.

But you know all of that. So I ask you now just to consider the map, and the brands. It is after all the best way for you to get a feel for where the SEC might head next. Those 6 schools represented were not the ultimate goal but a way of getting into the areas we considered most valuable to us and that was the ultimate goal.

Clemson backed out when F.S.U. headed to the ACC. South Carolina applied and gave us what we needed in the Palmetto State. Bridge to North Carolina accomplished.

Arkansas was decisive and gave us the bridge we wanted to Texas.

Texas wanted to explore other options and later both UT and A&M would run into political issues within their state.

Florida State chose the ACC for Bowden's stated purposes and even more reasons behind the scenes. The SEC desire to acquire more of the Sunshine State was therefore thwarted. Miami was a strategically intelligent acquisition for the ACC. That situation was a tactical error for us.

South Carolina was a nice addition but heretofore has not become the bridge we thought they might be into North Carolina. That addition while solid hasn't failed in its strategic purpose, but neither has it accomplished it. Appraisal of choice: Good.

Arkansas has now paid off with the addition of Texas A&M. Appraisal of choice: Excellent.

With the addition of A&M 3 of our first 6 goals have been accomplished.

Missouri would not have been possible without Arkansas either. Did we seek Missouri? No. But the addition of Missouri with new markets helped to cover part of what we had hoped to accomplish with another Florida brand, a greater share of markets. Appraisal of choice: Good to Very Good

With Missouri taking the place of the original hope of a second Florida school we now have 4 of our original slots filled.

Texas and Oklahoma remain outstanding. Either one would give us all we really need. Both would lock us into an unquestioned hold over top product and would no doubt NET everyone involved a much tidier sum.

So where do we stand today after acquiring the first two, the CCG, and now two more?:
A North Carolina School: Not Happening
A Virginia School: Nice Market, Not Happening, Was Too Far in '91 and Is Still Too Far
A South Carolina School: Check
A Second Florida School: Not Happening Any Time Soon
A Texas School or the Top Pair of Texas Schools: Check on the First Part
An Oklahoma School: Was a Bonus in '91. Now a Must if Texas Doesn't Join As They Give Us Essential Dominance In DFW: Still Needs to be Accomplished

Florida Make UP: Missouri - Check

As for now: If OU & UT join it's a grand slam. If just Texas joins we might look to Kansas as a second. If just Oklahoma joins we might have to take OSU to get them. Why? The Big 10 and PAC will be shopping for them too.

So I would feel comfortable saying that the SEC will be in the market for OU. The SEC would take Texas if the wanted in. We need a second Texas school for the same reason we would have been fortunate to have landed F.S.U. It's a big state and one of the top 2 schools plus a lesser brand cuts into our share too much. Holding both top brands locks down the state.

Another Texas school with just Texas? Probably not a requirement.
Another Oklahoma school with OU? Might well be a requirement.
Kansas? Great basketball addition but not a great fit.
West Virginia? Better suited to the ACC geographically.

It's probably what you already knew to be the options, but clearly there are only 2 schools we likely would take immediately. And the variable are few thereafter.

So speculation about moving to 20 or more simply isn't sustainable unless those schools were one of the North Carolina State schools, Florida State, or perhaps a strong and growing brand in Clemson, or that bridge too far in Virginia. In any event none of those are likely at all right now, if ever.

In fact, they may never have a reason to join us unless we added the options to the West that would make our financial reasons compelling.

But I assure you the Big 10 will have similar plans and essentially the same strategy. Whether in a year, or in six, the battle for Texas and Oklahoma is coming. That's where your eyes and thoughts need to be focused.

Jr, why would Virginia be considered too far away, while looking at Austin? Just curious.

In 1992 Virginia was considered to be too far away for the first round of expansion. They are still way out on the corner with only Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina in reasonable driving distance.

I've got nothing against V.Tech and they are the closest. I just don't think they are available now and even for the Eastern Division they are up there. Austin if they joined would be more reasonable with regard to L.S.U., Arkansas, Oklahoma if they joined (since they play in Dallas) but they too are quite the haul for Missouri.

(02-12-2017 04:47 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  VT is 3.5-4 hr drive to Knoxville TN and 6.5 hours to Atlanta. VT gets you into the Washington DC market as a huge chunk of their alumni live and reside there

Now, West Virginia would be a major geographical outlier. They would only get you into the Pittsburgh market.

Regardless, if we add OU and OSU, the B12 is stuck at a point of how to organize itself to remain competitive with other P5 conferences or break up.

The B1G might be best plucking AAU's from the PAC, but tbh the PAC would probably sell their interest in their network just to get I picked up nation wide

I think you are in the right ball park in your thinking with regards to the PAC and Big 10. If the SEC and Big 10 each land brands out of the Big 12 we are headed toward 50 million a season in TV revenues alone. Plus such moves essentially lock the ACC and PAC out of viable expansion candidates. In think in the years that followed a merger of the ACC into the SEC and the PAC into the Big 10 with consolidations of networks would be a distinct possibility. We'll see.

I do agree that OU and UT is the most economical move that could be made. They are two of the more valuable schools in all of college sports, they happen to be rivals, and they happen to be stuck in an unstable league. Moving to 16 with those 2 is the quickest way to a financial windfall.

With that said, I'm not sure it will be that easy.

One of the reasons I like Kansas is because I think we need them to generate ratings on the SECN. Our basketball season is a bit of a hole in the lineup right now because we just don't have that many fan bases that are engaged in their school's basketball program. That ultimately hurts ratings. Kansas is like having another Kentucky in the lineup, they have a national fan base which should also help us when we transition to more streaming later. Plus, the KU/MU rivalry in that part of the country is pretty significant. We would own the Kansas City region if we had both.

I do think it likely takes Oklahoma State to get Oklahoma. If we can avoid taking a 3rd TX school then how about this...

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Texas to the SEC as much as I would like to see it, probably won't happen.
So the SEC is caught playing defense, trying to keep Texas and Oklahoma (as a pair) out of the B1G.
The SEC needs another Texas school, or a least a way to lock down the Dallas/Ft. Worth market......without Texas, Oklahoma is the best solution.
The ace up the SEC's sleeve is that they would probably offer Oklahoma State and hope for a political fight in Oklahoma to keep the Sooners from running off to the B1G. Of course the B1G would never offer Oklahoma State. Texas in the B1G or PAC without Oklahoma has little impact on the SEC.

What we have is an impasse, being influenced by ESPN and FOX money, and it's will heat up as the Big 12 GOR expiration gets closer.
It is ironic that with all of the talk about Texas, that the real battle between the B1G and the SEC would be about Oklahoma and keeping the Sooners out of each others conference.

(02-12-2017 06:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas to the SEC as much as I would like to see it, probably won't happen.
So the SEC is caught playing defense, trying to keep Texas and Oklahoma (as a pair) out of the B1G.
The SEC needs another Texas school, or a least a way to lock down the Dallas/Ft. Worth market......without Texas, Oklahoma is the best solution.
The ace up the SEC's sleeve is that they would probably offer Oklahoma State and hope for a political fight in Oklahoma to keep the Sooners from running off to the B1G. Of course the B1G would never offer Oklahoma State. Texas in the B1G or PAC without Oklahoma has little impact on the SEC.

What we have is an impasse, being influenced by ESPN and FOX money, and it's will heat up as the Big 12 GOR expiration gets closer.
It is ironic that with all of the talk about Texas, that the real battle between the B1G and the SEC would be about Oklahoma and keeping the Sooners out of each others conference.

Yep, that's pretty much it, and it has been pretty much it since 2012. However, I simply don't think Texas will head North. They have too many issues in state right now to add that one to the list. The PAC, if ESPN gets something out of it, could be viable, but not as profitable as either the SEC or Big 10. There are some other variables that could make things interesting, but if the SEC lands OU we've locked ourselves into a favorable advantage and stalemated Texas and the Big 10.

(02-12-2017 07:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 06:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas to the SEC as much as I would like to see it, probably won't happen.
So the SEC is caught playing defense, trying to keep Texas and Oklahoma (as a pair) out of the B1G.
The SEC needs another Texas school, or a least a way to lock down the Dallas/Ft. Worth market......without Texas, Oklahoma is the best solution.
The ace up the SEC's sleeve is that they would probably offer Oklahoma State and hope for a political fight in Oklahoma to keep the Sooners from running off to the B1G. Of course the B1G would never offer Oklahoma State. Texas in the B1G or PAC without Oklahoma has little impact on the SEC.

What we have is an impasse, being influenced by ESPN and FOX money, and it's will heat up as the Big 12 GOR expiration gets closer.
It is ironic that with all of the talk about Texas, that the real battle between the B1G and the SEC would be about Oklahoma and keeping the Sooners out of each others conference.

Yep, that's pretty much it, and it has been pretty much it since 2012. However, I simply don't think Texas will head North. They have too many issues in state right now to add that one to the list. The PAC, if ESPN gets something out of it, could be viable, but not as profitable as either the SEC or Big 10. There are some other variables that could make things interesting, but if the SEC lands OU we've locked ourselves into a favorable advantage and stalemated Texas and the Big 10.

I would not count out the ACC as Texas' final destination. A partial (a la Notre Dame) would allow Texas to play all over the east coast and develop a rivalry with Notre Dame and still play at least 6 games in the State of Texas.

(02-12-2017 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 07:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 06:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas to the SEC as much as I would like to see it, probably won't happen.
So the SEC is caught playing defense, trying to keep Texas and Oklahoma (as a pair) out of the B1G.
The SEC needs another Texas school, or a least a way to lock down the Dallas/Ft. Worth market......without Texas, Oklahoma is the best solution.
The ace up the SEC's sleeve is that they would probably offer Oklahoma State and hope for a political fight in Oklahoma to keep the Sooners from running off to the B1G. Of course the B1G would never offer Oklahoma State. Texas in the B1G or PAC without Oklahoma has little impact on the SEC.

What we have is an impasse, being influenced by ESPN and FOX money, and it's will heat up as the Big 12 GOR expiration gets closer.
It is ironic that with all of the talk about Texas, that the real battle between the B1G and the SEC would be about Oklahoma and keeping the Sooners out of each others conference.

Yep, that's pretty much it, and it has been pretty much it since 2012. However, I simply don't think Texas will head North. They have too many issues in state right now to add that one to the list. The PAC, if ESPN gets something out of it, could be viable, but not as profitable as either the SEC or Big 10. There are some other variables that could make things interesting, but if the SEC lands OU we've locked ourselves into a favorable advantage and stalemated Texas and the Big 10.

I would not count out the ACC as Texas' final destination. A partial (a la Notre Dame) would allow Texas to play all over the east coast and develop a rivalry with Notre Dame and still play at least 6 games in the State of Texas.

It's possible, but no longer as likely as before. Minor sports are the issue.

(02-12-2017 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 07:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 06:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas to the SEC as much as I would like to see it, probably won't happen.
So the SEC is caught playing defense, trying to keep Texas and Oklahoma (as a pair) out of the B1G.
The SEC needs another Texas school, or a least a way to lock down the Dallas/Ft. Worth market......without Texas, Oklahoma is the best solution.
The ace up the SEC's sleeve is that they would probably offer Oklahoma State and hope for a political fight in Oklahoma to keep the Sooners from running off to the B1G. Of course the B1G would never offer Oklahoma State. Texas in the B1G or PAC without Oklahoma has little impact on the SEC.

What we have is an impasse, being influenced by ESPN and FOX money, and it's will heat up as the Big 12 GOR expiration gets closer.
It is ironic that with all of the talk about Texas, that the real battle between the B1G and the SEC would be about Oklahoma and keeping the Sooners out of each others conference.

Yep, that's pretty much it, and it has been pretty much it since 2012. However, I simply don't think Texas will head North. They have too many issues in state right now to add that one to the list. The PAC, if ESPN gets something out of it, could be viable, but not as profitable as either the SEC or Big 10. There are some other variables that could make things interesting, but if the SEC lands OU we've locked ourselves into a favorable advantage and stalemated Texas and the Big 10.

I would not count out the ACC as Texas' final destination. A partial (a la Notre Dame) would allow Texas to play all over the east coast and develop a rivalry with Notre Dame and still play at least 6 games in the State of Texas.

It's possible, but no longer as likely as before. Minor sports are the issue.

Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

(02-12-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 07:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 06:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas to the SEC as much as I would like to see it, probably won't happen.
So the SEC is caught playing defense, trying to keep Texas and Oklahoma (as a pair) out of the B1G.
The SEC needs another Texas school, or a least a way to lock down the Dallas/Ft. Worth market......without Texas, Oklahoma is the best solution.
The ace up the SEC's sleeve is that they would probably offer Oklahoma State and hope for a political fight in Oklahoma to keep the Sooners from running off to the B1G. Of course the B1G would never offer Oklahoma State. Texas in the B1G or PAC without Oklahoma has little impact on the SEC.

What we have is an impasse, being influenced by ESPN and FOX money, and it's will heat up as the Big 12 GOR expiration gets closer.
It is ironic that with all of the talk about Texas, that the real battle between the B1G and the SEC would be about Oklahoma and keeping the Sooners out of each others conference.

Yep, that's pretty much it, and it has been pretty much it since 2012. However, I simply don't think Texas will head North. They have too many issues in state right now to add that one to the list. The PAC, if ESPN gets something out of it, could be viable, but not as profitable as either the SEC or Big 10. There are some other variables that could make things interesting, but if the SEC lands OU we've locked ourselves into a favorable advantage and stalemated Texas and the Big 10.

I would not count out the ACC as Texas' final destination. A partial (a la Notre Dame) would allow Texas to play all over the east coast and develop a rivalry with Notre Dame and still play at least 6 games in the State of Texas.

It's possible, but no longer as likely as before. Minor sports are the issue.

Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

(02-13-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 07:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yep, that's pretty much it, and it has been pretty much it since 2012. However, I simply don't think Texas will head North. They have too many issues in state right now to add that one to the list. The PAC, if ESPN gets something out of it, could be viable, but not as profitable as either the SEC or Big 10. There are some other variables that could make things interesting, but if the SEC lands OU we've locked ourselves into a favorable advantage and stalemated Texas and the Big 10.

I would not count out the ACC as Texas' final destination. A partial (a la Notre Dame) would allow Texas to play all over the east coast and develop a rivalry with Notre Dame and still play at least 6 games in the State of Texas.

It's possible, but no longer as likely as before. Minor sports are the issue.

Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

This. Because Texas doesn't want their minor sports in a non P conference. They have to join a P conference in full. I could see the PAC if they can take enough schools from the Big 12 to have their own division. And, only if ESPN gets a share of the PACN.

The Big 10 can't take enough schools from the Big 12 to make Texas a comfy local home.

They aren't joining the ACC by themselves and flying over old rivals to get to them.

That leaves us.

(02-13-2017 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would not count out the ACC as Texas' final destination. A partial (a la Notre Dame) would allow Texas to play all over the east coast and develop a rivalry with Notre Dame and still play at least 6 games in the State of Texas.

It's possible, but no longer as likely as before. Minor sports are the issue.

Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

This. Because Texas doesn't want their minor sports in a non P conference. They have to join a P conference in full. I could see the PAC if they can take enough schools from the Big 12 to have their own division. And, only if ESPN gets a share of the PACN.

The Big 10 can't take enough schools from the Big 12 to make Texas a comfy local home.

They aren't joining the ACC by themselves and flying over old rivals to get to them.

That leaves us.

Or Texas can reconstruct the SWC with as many Texas schools as they want after Oklahoma moves to the SEC. They already have a network and only need ten to hold a championship game.
Even if Kansas moves to the B1G and Oklahoma is gone adding the "best of the rest" (Cincinnati, Houston and BYU) gets you a viable conference. Need more numbers? SMU, Rice, Tulane and New Mexico and you are at 15 just like the B1G, SEC and ACC.
There are a lot of options open to Texas before "that leaves us".
Plus Texas is the undisputed KING and every other school in the conference would be beholding to them.

I can see Oklahoma & Oklahoma State to the SEC. The ACC could go to 18 with Texas, ND, TT & TCU if allowed to go to a 3x6. Those 4 plus Louisville & Miami(?) would make a strong western division. In that scenario the SEC could go to 18 as well with Kansas & 1 other. The B1G & PAC would then become extremely limited.

(02-13-2017 08:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's possible, but no longer as likely as before. Minor sports are the issue.

Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

This. Because Texas doesn't want their minor sports in a non P conference. They have to join a P conference in full. I could see the PAC if they can take enough schools from the Big 12 to have their own division. And, only if ESPN gets a share of the PACN.

The Big 10 can't take enough schools from the Big 12 to make Texas a comfy local home.

They aren't joining the ACC by themselves and flying over old rivals to get to them.

That leaves us.

Or Texas can reconstruct the SWC with as many Texas schools as they want after Oklahoma moves to the SEC. They already have a network and only need ten to hold a championship game.
Even if Kansas moves to the B1G and Oklahoma is gone adding the "best of the rest" (Cincinnati, Houston and BYU) gets you a viable conference. Need more numbers? SMU, Rice, Tulane and New Mexico and you are at 15 just like the B1G, SEC and ACC.
There are a lot of options open to Texas before "that leaves us".
Plus Texas is the undisputed KING and every other school in the conference would be beholding to them.

They very well could reconstruct their own league, but do they want to? If they allow their own league to be downgraded in relevance and money every few years then eventually they're going to have some serious issues financially. There's a reason they left the original SWC.

I think a more likely scenario than that would be a quasi-independence with a rebuilt Big 12. They want to play regional rivals, yes, but they aren't going to allow their football program to be downgraded in prestige.

It's not very impressive to be the king when your dominion is a dumpster fire.

(02-13-2017 08:33 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I can see Oklahoma & Oklahoma State to the SEC. The ACC could go to 18 with Texas, ND, TT & TCU if allowed to go to a 3x6. Those 4 plus Louisville & Miami(?) would make a strong western division. In that scenario the SEC could go to 18 as well with Kansas & 1 other. The B1G & PAC would then become extremely limited.

If the ACC was willing to take a core of schools from the Big 12 then all these discussions would be very different. The Big 12 would be easy to carve up.

(02-13-2017 08:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

This. Because Texas doesn't want their minor sports in a non P conference. They have to join a P conference in full. I could see the PAC if they can take enough schools from the Big 12 to have their own division. And, only if ESPN gets a share of the PACN.

The Big 10 can't take enough schools from the Big 12 to make Texas a comfy local home.

They aren't joining the ACC by themselves and flying over old rivals to get to them.

That leaves us.

Or Texas can reconstruct the SWC with as many Texas schools as they want after Oklahoma moves to the SEC. They already have a network and only need ten to hold a championship game.
Even if Kansas moves to the B1G and Oklahoma is gone adding the "best of the rest" (Cincinnati, Houston and BYU) gets you a viable conference. Need more numbers? SMU, Rice, Tulane and New Mexico and you are at 15 just like the B1G, SEC and ACC.
There are a lot of options open to Texas before "that leaves us".
Plus Texas is the undisputed KING and every other school in the conference would be beholding to them.

They very well could reconstruct their own league, but do they want to? If they allow their own league to be downgraded in relevance and money every few years then eventually they're going to have some serious issues financially. There's a reason they left the original SWC.

I think a more likely scenario than that would be a quasi-independence with a rebuilt Big 12. They want to play regional rivals, yes, but they aren't going to allow their football program to be downgraded in prestige.

It's not very impressive to be the king when your dominion is a dumpster fire.

Texas' financial future is set as long as the LHN contract is in force, it's only the other guys that will be making less which even strengthens Texas' dominance.

(02-13-2017 08:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:33 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I can see Oklahoma & Oklahoma State to the SEC. The ACC could go to 18 with Texas, ND, TT & TCU if allowed to go to a 3x6. Those 4 plus Louisville & Miami(?) would make a strong western division. In that scenario the SEC could go to 18 as well with Kansas & 1 other. The B1G & PAC would then become extremely limited.

If the ACC was willing to take a core of schools from the Big 12 then all these discussions would be very different. The Big 12 would be easy to carve up.

It could happen but I can see Tobacco Road being against it. While it could be a financial windfall in the short term it could lead to instability in the long term. A divide in power between the old guard ACC & the football first programs would be poised to butt heads. Tobacco Road versus the Texas schools, Florida schools, ND & possibly Clemson. A lot of other schools would likely be caught in the middle. I don't see Tobacco Road putting themselves in that situation. Ultimately I think the ACC sits out on the battle for Texas & Oklahoma considering the costs to land Texas. Texas alone with ND, possibility. ND as 15 or with WV as 16 is more likely.

(02-13-2017 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 08:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would not count out the ACC as Texas' final destination. A partial (a la Notre Dame) would allow Texas to play all over the east coast and develop a rivalry with Notre Dame and still play at least 6 games in the State of Texas.

It's possible, but no longer as likely as before. Minor sports are the issue.

Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

This. Because Texas doesn't want their minor sports in a non P conference. They have to join a P conference in full. I could see the PAC if they can take enough schools from the Big 12 to have their own division. And, only if ESPN gets a share of the PACN.

The Big 10 can't take enough schools from the Big 12 to make Texas a comfy local home.

They aren't joining the ACC by themselves and flying over old rivals to get to them.

That leaves us.

ok, JR, let me throw you a curve ball. what if the SEC ceded two eastern schools to the ACC to make room for the Texahoma4? admittedly, this is crazy off-season talk, but you could send Kentucky to the ACC without ruffling too many feathers. heck, the UK crowd would probably love the basketball side of it. Maybe USC or Vandy could be the other one. it would solidify the best football and basketball under ESPN.